It says a lot about how confused political discourse gets that the author considers these things "not politics". Politics is all about value judgements and arguing about where we are going.<p>If things like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... don't immediately become intensely political then somebody is being very ineffective at politics. There seems to be a weird assumption here that politics is fundamentally in bad faith and people aren't acting from value judgements and reason.
"How many holes exist in a straw?"<p>Any time I asked this question it produces some joyful brainstorming. It doesn't matter if it is a room full of highly technical people(engineers, mathematicians) or a family dinner.<p>I've already heard most of the arguments from the topological definition of a hole to difference between a hole, a cavity and a hallow but it is still very fun for me to watch people getting excited over such a boring looking question. (:
> Why do most people seem to hold poetry and poets in high esteem yet have approximately zero interest in reading any poetry ever?<p>I've wondered this for years.<p>Like seriously, is there anyone who seriously reads poetry for fun nowadays?<p>I understand if it's the 1800s and there's literally nothing else to do.
Funny I have the complete opposite viewpoint. Because we have trained people to not discuss politics when the discussions inevitably arise they are much more contentious and less civil.
The reason politics is so easy to argue about is because most people have strong feelings about which “side” is better, with the media feeding us all talking points to back up each person’s perspective, with very little critical thinking.<p>Questions like…<p>> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little?<p>require critical thinking, in the moment, to form an opinion (as do most other examples on the list).<p>More “suitable” topics to argue about would be ones that don’t require very much critical thinking (sadly), and topics where everyone is likely to already know what “side” they’re on.<p>So, instead let’s argue about what to argue about before we start arguing.
I suspect asking if it's fair that Jesus was a nepo baby who only got to where he is because he has a famous dad is the kind of question that could only be cooled down by changing the subject to post Nixon POTUS tax returns.
For those who are alone: Try posting each question from the list to ChatGPT.<p>For those who are meeting family: Use ChatGPT to prepare for your arguments.
Hmm.. all these things will end up with politics. The politics is about values and beliefs: not something independent of life.
The easiest way to prevent “politics fight” is to try to understand and know others person background.<p>If you want avoid big arguments then just talk about weather (and even that can get crazy). Maybe sports?
I these holidays will be the most chill in maybe a decade.<p>That 1.7 trillion USD omnibus package was passed. Mitch McConnell seemed pretty happy, along with the Democrat caucus. Things are starting to look normal again.<p>Georgia voted for Brian Kemp and Warnock in the same election. Another data point pointing towards the newfound chillness.
> Do we focus too much on classic books/music/movies/plays/art/ideas, or too little?<p>Alright so maybe we’re going to draw straws to see who has to defend the affirmative, and they can open presents first or whatever
> Say that if everyone voluntarily waited a bit longer to reproduce then after a hundred generations human life expectancy would increase by 25 years. Would we be morally obligated to do that?<p>I don't get this. Why is it true?
Number 19 is a good one. Perfect business, own something that's in everything that's too small be thought of as a monopoly, but is actually just that.
The way to avoid harsh political discussions is to talk about systems. it will be easier to have a nuanced, still political, discussion.<p>When someone engage the discussion on Twitter, and that start in a 'this group is X, this group is Y', start talking about what is Twitter, what it should be, how it would work, advertising, multinational reach and soft power implications.<p>Do the same thing for Biden, Trump or the election. Talk generic instead of specifics, systems rather than persons. Power structure rather than personal power.
So here's the thing.<p>- Politics are really important actually<p>- Those disagreements will still be there<p>Your racist uncle (or, ok fine, your grating progressive auntie) will <i>still hold those views</i> tomorrow.<p>OTOH fighting will probably only make things worse.<p>Suggest instead meaningful, loving, gentle conversations that are permitted to range across many subjects, including politics.<p>This is the time of year when life presents you with opportunities to practice. They are precious :D
I don’t generally like talking about “politics” even with people who agree with my positions. I love talking about “political science” in the vein of “Five Thirty Eight”.<p>I did something that would usually be taboo recently. I talked about “politics” in a business setting with a customer at dinner. Neither one of us talked about our personal belief system. We talked about the politicians we admired as far as their ability to get things done and navigate the system.<p>We talked about our admiration for politicians on every part of the spectrum from the disciplined campaign that Republican Brian Kemp ran while being constantly attacked by Trump, how Pelosi was better able to keep her side disciplined when in power, etc.
I think the article implicitly assumes an American context. Political arguments in other countries are not as contentious.<p>American politics, as seen by someone who's never visited America but is hooked to the spectacle is fundamentally a difference in opinion about the reality we inhabit.<p>In other countries, political arguments are not as contentious because we can broadly agree on the state of reality. I might think my local MP is corrupt and is better replaced by another while my uncle who lives nearby might think he might be a bit corrupt but more "effective" at "getting things done" than the other guy. Therefore, political arguments of this sort might render the dinner table conversation lively but never descend into acrimony.<p>It's an entirely different thing if the starting point is that one of us thinks that the party the other one supports is filled with satanic vampires that murder children and drink their blood.<p>To an outsider American politics is like a slow moving train wreck. It's horrifying but you just can't look away.
1) Should Europe really be considered a continent, as it's just part of Eurasia?<p>2) Should (English-speaking) residents of England be considered the only native English speakers?<p>3) Before compulsory education, was the general population really stupid?<p>4) Has compulsory education made the world a better place?
> If you accept that agriculture made life worse but hunter-gatherers had to adopt it or be vanquished, then are we going through any similar changes now?<p>Capitalism? Fossil fuels?
I'll add one to the list just because it's been on my mind the last few weeks.<p>There's a correlation between IQ and general health, and most of your "processing" is subconscious.<p>Could this correlation be due to high IQ brains being better at strategizing and organizing the autonomic systems in the body?